| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| w22dheartlivie |
Posted - 07/14/2007 : 01:44:00
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070712/ap_on_re_us/toddler_booted_1
Thu Jul 12, 2:15 PM ET
ATLANTA - A woman said she and her toddler son were kicked off a plane after she refused a flight attendant's request to medicate her son to get him to quiet down and stop saying "Bye bye, plane."
Kate Penland, of suburban Atlanta, said she and her 19-month-old son, Garren, were flying from Atlanta to Oklahoma last month on a Continental Express flight that made a stop in Houston.
As the plane was taxiing in Houston en route to Oklahoma, "he started saying 'Bye, bye plane,' Penland told WSB-TV in Atlanta. The flight attendant objected, she said.
"At the end of her speech, she leaned over the gentleman beside me and said, 'It's not funny anymore. You need to shut your baby up,'" Penland told WSB-TV in Atlanta.
When Penland asked the woman if she was joking, she said the stewardess replied, "You know, it's called Baby Benadryl."
"And I said, 'Well, I'm not going to drug my child so you have a pleasant flight,'" Penland told the TV station.
Penland said other passengers began speaking up on her behalf, and the flight attendant announced they were turning around and that Penland and Garren were going to be taken off the plane.
Penland and her son were let off the plane and did not complete the trip to Oklahoma, said Kristy Nicholas, spokeswoman for Express Jet Airlines, which flies as Continental Express on behalf of Continental Airlines.
Attempts by the Associated Press to reach Penland under a telephone listing that matched her last name were unsuccessful.
"I was crying, I was upset and I was thinking, 'What am I going to do? I don't have anything with me, I don't have any more diapers for the baby, no juice, no milk," Penland told WSB.
Nicholas said, "We received Ms. Penland's letter expressing her concerns and intend to investigate its contents." |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Sean |
Posted - 07/18/2007 : 02:28:39
quote:
Originally posted by BiggerBoat
But are the populace living in a state of stress-induced terror? No, I don't think so. We're used to this threat.
That's a good point. Even with the draconian removal of hard-won freedoms by Blair et al and regular governmental scaremongering, the population are able to avoid a paranoid response to the 'terrorist' threat due to long-term familiarity with it. Perhaps that's why UK airline and airport staff don't treat every passenger (1-year-olds included) as a potential suicide bomber. Having said that, a London cop did pump eight bullets into the head of a catholic Brazilian electrician while he was restrained and lying on the ground, with the subsequent investigation concluding that the cop did nothing wrong....
Aussie PM John Howard (whose party is trailing significantly in the polls) is using the "terrorist boogieman is out to get ya' and I'm the only one who'll keep ya' safe" option at the moment. That's all he's got.  |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 07/16/2007 : 07:27:08
Well, BB, from here, the UK is thought of very well as far as intelligence and terror threats are concerned. While the bus bombings were a very unfortunate slip-up (and by the way, the Israeli woman who was killed in that bombing used to work in my offices. Ironically, she moved to the UK because she was afraid to continue living here because of the terror), they are now looked upon as an exception to the rule for you. The last two big attempts in the UK that were thwarted (for the most part) were considered to be successes by us here, that your intelligence agencies should be very proud of. That's the type of thing that makes people feel more secure - proof that the government is using its resources well to protect its citizens.
Does not having any major attempts in the USA make Americans feel more secure? No. And the reason why is that the more attempts that happen in Europe, the better the chances are that they're next. Attacks like 9/11 take a long time to plan, and require large amounts of resources. Stopping such a future attack takes keen intelligence and proper personnel to act on that information in a timely and effective way. With the US funnelling so much of its efforts, personnel and money into Iraq, the threat at home isn't being taken as seriously as it should. This is mostly because of the US government's incorrect assumption that quashing Iraq's insurgents will stop terrorism in the USA. Its a ticking timebomb and I just hope that someone realizes it before it goes off.
By the way, if you think I'm overreacting about the 'ticking timebomb' bit, I could quote for you a message I put on a newsgroup from before this war in Iraq was started that shows I didn't believe there were any WMD's in Iraq anymore and even if there were some, that Saddam probably didn't have the ability to use them for any long-range targets (including Israel), if at all. I was jumped on for saying that at the time, but hindsight has proven me more than right. |
| BiggerBoat |
Posted - 07/15/2007 : 16:08:07
I don't think we've got the same problem here in the UK. Most people could see the idiocy of joining forces with America from the very beginning. I was one of the 1-2 million who marched against the Iraq war shortly after Colin Powell had shown some images of Iraqi kids letting off some fireworks to the UN as proof of WMD. It was clear to any rational thinking person that there was no good reason to go in. Unfortunately it was also clear that nothing we did could stop them.
I think that Tony Blair bitterly regrets ever getting involved because despite any good he did for our country in ten years of power, Iraq is now his legacy, regardless of how he sees it. He's also brought terrorism back into our country after such a maginificent job in ending the Northern Ireland problem. But in that sense, not much has changed over here - there are still bombs going off in our major cities and until we pull out of the countries we had no right to occupy in the first place, it will continue.
But are the populace living in a state of stress-induced terror? No, I don't think so. We're used to this threat. I've been close to three bombs in the last ten years, the closest shave being the docklands bombing which totalled the building I was working in. Luckily I'd left an hour before. In the London bombing two years ago three of the bombs went off within five minutes of my office and one was on my route to work. Do I feel scared? No. I may as well get hit by some frozen shit falling out of an aircraft. Am I wary of everyone I see with a beard? Well, yes actually, but that was always the case...
But if there is a state of mass paranoia in America right now, I'm afraid the only way you can get rid of it is to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, because you can't win a war on terror, especially against an enemy where martyrdom is prized so highly and they are of no fixed abode. Whatever 'American interests' you have to leave behind, be it oil or other resources, you must do so, for the sake of your people. Americans are good people (they give more to charity than any other nation) but they are being betrayed by their leaders for the sake of corporate interests. This story is a sad indictment of what America's leaders have done to their people, turning them against one another. But I wish them luck because I've always been fond of America and its people (and films!) and just hope that this whole mess can be sorted out peacefully and conclusively. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 07/15/2007 : 06:13:32
quote:
Originally posted by Tori
I suffer from PTSD and while I can understand that the constant reminders of 9/11 would be horrible, I don't see how it applies to this case and I don't think it's the government's fault that people are still suffering from 9/11.
I agree that this case really hasn't anything to do with 9/11. That aside, if the attandant has PTSD, then she shouldn't be working as flight crew, and then the airline is to blame for not removing her and giving her ground crew duties.
As for it not being "the government's fault that people are still suffering from 9/11" - I have to disagree. At every turn and with every breath they take they slap 9/11 into the public's faces, linking it up with their war in Iraq and doing everything they can to keep people in a frightened state. Trust me, as someone who has lived in Israel for more than half of my life, the US government is only making any 9/11 PTSD worse for their people, and not better. And from an outsider's point of view, it looks like they do it on purpose!
|
| Sean |
Posted - 07/15/2007 : 05:31:57
quote:
Originally posted by Tori
I suffer from PTSD and while I can understand that the constant reminders of 9/11 would be horrible, I don't see how it applies to this case and I don't think it's the government's fault that people are still suffering from 9/11.
Not only are people reminded of 9/11 on a regular basis (by government and media), and the state of fear propagated by use of the "red alert / yellow alert" system, but paranoid behaviour by airline/airport staff is expected. Quote from the ABC article:-
With concern for airline security so high since Sept. 11, angst over safety likely lowered tolerance for any actions or words out of the ordinary � even if they came from a 1-year-old.
That's way beyond sane in my view.
I should probably have put ' ' around PTSD, and I'm not necessarily suggesting that the flight attendant personally suffers from it (she may have just been angry and wanted to punish the woman/kid in any way she could - by stopping the plane and throwing her off). But the reaction from the US/UK governments to 9/11 has been quite insane in my view (well, it's insane if they have the welfare of their citizens at heart) - futile invasions of other countries, destruction of civil liberties that have taken centuries to secure, and encouraging a general and permanent state of paranoia. So it's hardly surprising that a 1-year old is able to stop an aeroplane given that paranoia is not only encouraged; it's enshrined in regulated empowerment of airport and airline staff.
So, in the same way I sum up a market as 'greedy', or 'fearful', or I sum up a corporation or industry group as 'psychopathic', I'd also sum up the US/UK governments and parts of their societies as having 'post-shock paranoia', which I'd argue was 'PTSD'.
9/11 was totally shocking to me as well, I still recall being stunned with a sickening fear when I turned on the TV and saw people jumping out of windows etc. But... I couldn't do anything about it. So I got over it. It was nearly six years ago.
La vita � bella.  |
| w22dheartlivie |
Posted - 07/14/2007 : 23:37:01
Just wanted to add one more link discussing this from ABC News. |
| Tori |
Posted - 07/14/2007 : 18:37:52
I suffer from PTSD and while I can understand that the constant reminders of 9/11 would be horrible, I don't see how it applies to this case and I don't think it's the government's fault that people are still suffering from 9/11. |
| Stalean |
Posted - 07/14/2007 : 16:43:30
I'm with you, ChocolateLady. That smacks of one of those email spams one receives. The emails where you have to check UrbanLegends or Snopes before you can believe what it says. One always has to be vigilent when it comes to journalism/news stories. |
| Downtown |
Posted - 07/14/2007 : 14:36:27
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
But either way, the attendant was just plain wrong.
I'd be rather surprised if flight attendants have the power to turn a plane around because a kid is being noisy.
They don't, but according to Federal law the captain has the power to do nearly anything he pleases. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 07/14/2007 : 14:10:36
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
One of the more in-depth stories said that the flight attendant told the captain this woman had threatened her. Other passengers nearby said they heard no such thing and she was not arrested or questioned. The airline put her up in a hotel room overnight and sent her on to Oklahoma. *shrug*
In which case, that particular account of the story was one very bad piece of journalism. Not all the facts were included or they were not properly investigated. If all these accounts are showing other information, then I'm going to rate that article very poorly. That's no way to treat your reading public!
|
| w22dheartlivie |
Posted - 07/14/2007 : 13:50:13
One of the more in-depth stories said that the flight attendant told the captain this woman had threatened her. Other passengers nearby said they heard no such thing and she was not arrested or questioned. The airline put her up in a hotel room overnight and sent her on to Oklahoma. *shrug* |
| Sean |
Posted - 07/14/2007 : 13:09:29
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
But either way, the attendant was just plain wrong.
I'd be rather surprised if flight attendants have the power to turn a plane around because a kid is being noisy. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 07/14/2007 : 12:52:19
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
In some other reports I read, it said that they had been delayed in Houston for 11 hours and she didn't have enough to last that long a period of time.
Well, that would explain that. But either way, the attendant was just plain wrong.
|
| w22dheartlivie |
Posted - 07/14/2007 : 12:15:10
In some other reports I read, it said that they had been delayed in Houston for 11 hours and she didn't have enough to last that long a period of time. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 07/14/2007 : 12:12:01
Wait a minute:
quote:
Atlanta to Oklahoma last month on a Continental Express flight that made a stop in Houston.
As the plane was taxiing in Houston en route to Oklahoma...
Okay, a flight from Atlanta to Houston takes about two hours. The Houston to Oklahoma leg is another hour and a half flight. From what I can see, Continental's ATL-IAH-OKC plan takes just over 4 hours, if they're on the connection that has only a 45 minute layover in Houston. There's no way a 19 month old kid can go that amount of time without a diaper change. Where were his diapers, I wonder? Something is sounding very strange here.
|
|
|
